|
Classics that "everybody" likes, except you. (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Cinos
Why would researching grant less insight than hearing the stuff back then? |
Uh...because they experienced it all as it happened?
People have watched trance evolve from relatively unknown, loopy, hypnotic music, break into the mainstream with 'Children', beared witness to its escalating popularity thanks to Paul Oakenfold and the Global Underground series, suffered through the endless breakdown anthems that began to plague parties, and finally took a look around themselves and asked, "What the happened here?"
It's been a wild, wonky ride for trance music this past decade.
In my opinion, anyone that started to listen to trance music during the Tranceport/Global Underground era has no real concept of what trance music is. Even if they go and discover its roots through a dedicated love of anything named 'trance', they'll still come across it with a different perspective due to being weaned on the more accessible riffs and hooks that came later. |
|
|
| TuanAnh213 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
In my opinion, anyone that started to listen to trance music during the Tranceport/Global Underground era has no real concept of what trance music is. Even if they go and discover its roots through a dedicated love of anything named 'trance', they'll still come across it with a different perspective due to being weaned on the more accessible riffs and hooks that came later. |
does anybody really care? |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by TuanAnh213
does anybody really care? |
Probably not, and that's the problem. |
|
|
| isoterra |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
What kind of fool statement is that? You can't judge the new without knowing about how it all began. Well you can, but it wouldn't be a very smart decision.
Many people who delve into trance over the last five years just don't realize why it's called trance in the first place. Sure, many of the rhythms and melodies that are produced may send you into a euphoric trance, but initially trance music was about sending you into a hypnotic trance. Psy does this as well.
By not recognizing this fact is how many newbies to trance music don't have a concept of what trance is (or was meant to be, in any event). |
You seem to rely on established pigeonholeing too much... I'm not sure who first categorised the uplifting/epic/melodic sound as 'trance' back in 98 or whenever, but it's them you should be directing your discontent at, not the people who prefer the post-98 sound. Trance as it's most commonly known as now really only dates back to the Oakenfold period or a little while before, like you mentioned. The sound several years before that which you're talking about bears few similarities and the only clear thing which links it to post-98 trance is the name. It strikes me that you're using the word 'trance' to assess the history of the sound rather than the actual merits of the sound itself.
Forget subgenre names for a moment... does it seem logical to judge music which puts you in a euphoric trance in relation to music which puts you in a hypnotic trance? I don't think it does; people are either going to prefer one or the other, depending on their emotional mindset. |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by isoterra
You seem to rely on established pigeonholeing too much... I'm not sure who first categorised the uplifting/epic/melodic sound as 'trance' back in 98 or whenever, but it's them you should be directing your discontent at, not the people who prefer the post-98 sound. Trance as it's most commonly known as now really only dates back to 1998, when Ferry Corsten first learnt how to use an arpeggiator. The sound several years before that which you're talking about bears few similarities and the only clear thing which links it to post-98 trance is the name. It strikes me that you're using the word 'trance' to assess the history of the sound rather than the actual merits of the sound itself.
Forget subgenre names for a moment... does it seem logical to judge music which puts you in a euphoric trance in relation to music which puts you in a hypnotic trance? I don't think it does; people are either going to prefer one or the other, depending on their emotional mindset. |
Of course I should be directing my discontent at the people who prefer epic/anthem trance...they helped destroy trance. If you hold that both eras shouldn't be called trance the problem still comes when as a result of one taking the name of the first, the original was destroyed.
Actually I find it amusing that people are posing these questions to me. They have all been answered by other people on these very forums. |
|
|
| TuanAnh213 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
Of course I should be directing my discontent at the people who prefer epic/anthem trance...they helped destroy trance. If you hold that both eras shouldn't be called trance the problem still comes when as a result of one taking the name of the first, the original was destroyed.
|
what's an example of the original trance? give me a track name i'm curious |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by TuanAnh213
what's an example of the original trance? give me a track name i'm curious |
Cosmic Baby - Magic Cubes |
|
|
| isoterra |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
If you hold that both eras shouldn't be called trance the problem still comes when as a result of one taking the name of the first, the original was destroyed. |
Destroyed isn't quite the word I'd use but defaced, overshadowed.. yes maybe, agreed... if you base your entire taste on genre labels.
| quote: | | Of course I should be directing my discontent at the people who prefer epic/anthem trance...they helped destroy trance. |
I think you must have missed my point. Those people liked that sound, regardless of the name it was given. They didn't decide to call it trance, ergo, they didn't have a part in 'destroying' the old hypnotic sound which you admire.
| quote: | | Actually I find it amusing that people are posing these questions to me. They have all been answered by other people on these very forums. |
Many topics get covered at least twice around here. I was interested in your opinion, however. |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by isoterra
I think you must have missed my point. Those people liked that sound, regardless of the name it was given. They didn't decide to call it trance, ergo, they didn't have a part in 'destroying' the old hypnotic sound which you admire. |
Who did decide, and can you provide any logical reson why? Replace admire with respect.
| quote: |
Many topics get covered at least twice around here. I was interested in your opinion, however. |
LOL. That's a first. |
|
|
| DJ Cinos |
You didn't answer me, Radagast! How was experiencing it back then better than reliving the change today?
Also, saying that trance was "destroyed" is foolish. It evolved. |
|
|
| Radagast |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Cinos
You didn't answer me, Radagast! How was experiencing it back then better than reliving the change today? |
I answered your question in two paragraphs. Because they were there when it evolved and see it from a perspective that no one else will quite be able to capture again. And this is a completely different question that the first one. I never claimed that experiencin it back then was 'better', but as you said in your first question, I think it gives them more insight.
Being as how epic trance replaced "classic" trance, and they both elicit different reactions from people, and structuarally they are different...i'd say destroy is a pretty good word. Iraq didn't evolve, it was destroyed and re-formed. Same concept with this particular strain of trance, except the re-forming caused the destroying. |
|
|
| isoterra |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
Who did decide, and can you provide any logical reson why? |
Most likely a combination of event promoters, reviewers & publishers who put out compilations (eg. Ministry of Sound: Trance Nation) etc. As for a logical reason... I can only guess they wanted to put a 'cool' label on a newly emerging and popular sound to help it sell. Alot of it boils down to marketing at the end of the day, sadly. |
|
|
|
|
